Breaking The Law?

There are in my view two fundamental objections to the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment on the UK’s position on prisoners’ right to vote.

The first is by allowing an unelected and unaccountable court to effectively act as a legislator as well; telling Parliament what laws it can and cannot pass - against the expressed wishes of the UK population. It is with dazzlingly irony that the judgement doesn’t actually give prisoners’ the right to vote but instead removes that very right from the rest of us.

The second is that the right to vote is not a human right, unlike for example access to food, clothes and medicine. It instead is a contract between the government and its taxpaying citizens. Democracy resides on the basis of the rule of law. As responsible adults we have duty to abide by those laws, even ones we disagree with and in return we have the privileges of being able to make or influence those laws. It should, if it worked properly, allow us to have say in how our money is spent.

Thus if we breach our side of the bargain and break a law we should expect to be removed from the process during a period of incarceration as a consequence of not keeping our side of the contract.

Conversely if we have no means of making law – we simply have no choice- as in a dictatorship run by fear via tanks on the streets then we have a moral right to ignore the law and break it by virtue of the government having not kept their side of the bargain. An example of this is the Arab Spring.

And this leads me onto our membership of the European Union. One of the most insidious consequences of EU membership is it encourages UK citizens to demand that their government breaks the law when we have no moral right to do so. The EU - and this is crucial - does not rule by fear, it rules by our consent.

The UK, by due process via Parliament has chosen to be a member, has chosen to implement EU law and in many ways gold plates such laws, and has chosen to accept EU diktats. Thus Parliament remains sovereign because it still has the right to leave. It simply chooses not to. The fault line in our democracy is between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and the EU.

The EU is a club we as a country chose to join and as a country we can choose to leave. The basic principles of joining any club are as follows:

1. Abide by the rules or laws
   
   
2. Change the laws within the context of membership
   
   
3. Or leave

Public opinion is increasingly saying option a) is not acceptable, option b) which Cameron allegedly advocates is not possible as has been pointed out many times, so that only leaves option c). But option c) remains elusive because the UK population has not yet exercised their peacefully, law-abiding right to demand exit via current electoral processes.

And the establishment cannot cope with option c) so they try to work within option b) with unproductive results. It leads to demands to treat EU membership like an a la carte menu; apparently we abide by the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don’t. But ironically it becomes a demand that says we wish to remain members - because if we left abiding by EU rules would no longer be a problem.

One can see this a la carte phenomenon by today's Daily Mail article on immigration which made its front page:

 

This from the same paper that has continually argued for membership of the same club i.e. the EU:

Let the Mail lay all its cards on the table. This paper has no desire for Britain to pull out of Europe [EU]...

Richard North rightly takes apart its report on the detail of immigration - immigration is a fiendishly complex issue, yet what also is disturbing is the Daily Mail (who supports EU membership) implying very heavily that the Government should break the law as the paper cannot bring itself to argue that we should leave the club:

But the threat of big fines from the European Court of Justice was brushed off by almost two thirds of the public.

They said that – even if it meant legal sanctions – the Prime Minister should keep the restrictions in place to ‘serve the national interest’. And 80 per cent of voters say Westminster should retain the final say over who enters the country. 

And even Tory MPs agree:

But, under EU rules, the arrangements must be lifted on January 1. Any failure to do so would be considered a breach of the free movement directive – a founding principle of the EU.

Britain would most likely face heavy fines, but the European Court of Justice – the EU’s enforcement arm – is notoriously slow moving.

Tory MPs believe the 2015 general election may even have passed before a verdict is handed down.

I most definitely don't want to encourage the government to break the law - it should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us - otherwise therein lies a very slippery slope indeed. Instead what such position highlights is sovereignty or more accurately the lack of.

Such sentiments are also expressed in the view, often in newspaper comments, that other countries ignore EU laws so why don't we? Such sentiments are not true - we are not the most compliant state and nor is it correct that other EU nations flagrantly ignore EU law. We can see this by the latest report by the EU Commission on application of EU law (click to enlarge):

As becomes apparent the UK has more infringements than France, yet is still 9th on the list. And also regarding infringment procedures the UK comes 9th (again click to enlarge):

The implementation of EU law is actually rather good across all member states and so it should be, we chose to join we can choose to leave. But while we remain members we have a duty to abide by the law - EU law or otherwise - so any demands to ignore EU law while we choose to remain members carries with it no moral weight.

We simply just have to leave...

Kicking The Arse Out Of Deja Vu...

The running sore that is the Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights means there is more faux outrage from the Tories, and the Telegraph about it:

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, slams 'unacceptable' interference by Strasbourg judges as one of Britain's most dangerous terrorists claims his rights were infringed

The inteference?

One of Britain’s most dangerous al-Qaeda terrorists is seeking to have his conviction overturned on human rights grounds, The Telegraph can disclose.

[Abdulla Ahmed Ali] alleges the jury would have been prejudiced by media coverage of a previous trial. 

And of course it's "unacceptable" - it goes to the heart of our country's sovereignty and democracy.

In response Mr Grayling goes on to say that the Conservatives will go into the next election promising abolition of the Human Rights Act (HRA). But one asks how abolition of the HRA will defend ourselves against the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) especially taking into account that the Act was passed to help give UK courts a mechanism to remedy breaches of a Convention right, without having to go straight to the Strasbourg court.

So are the Tories proposing scrapping the HRA but staying in the ECHR?  If so this would still leave the Home Secretary powerless to deport individuals in the interest of national security.  Or do they want to pull out of the ECHR altogether? Leaving the Strasbourg court would mean not only the UK is out of step with its international obligations but would also mean having to leave the EU altogether. A condition of EU membership is to be a member of the Council of Europe - thus the ECHR. Leaving the EU is a course of action the Tories will not contemplate.

Naturally we've been here before with Tory rhetoric on ECHR rulings, many times:

Britain may have to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights entirely in order to extradite foreign criminals, David Cameron says.

And here in (2006):

Mr Cameron claimed existing human rights legislation was hindering the fight against crime and terrorism, at the same time as failing to protect people's civil liberties. 

And here (2011):

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, risks an explosive rift inside the Coalition with an explicit call for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act.

And here (2013):

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said that "by 2015, we'll need a plan for dealing with the European Court of Human Rights". "And yes, I want to be clear that all options - including leaving the convention altogether - should be on the table."

And here (2010), "it makes me physically ill to even contemplate to give anyone in prison the right to vote" says Cameron.

Not forgetting that "abolition of the Human Rights Act (HRA)" was exactly the promise they went into the last election, then...look what happened in 2010...

The Daily Mail revealed yesterday that the flagship Tory commitment to scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a British Bill of Rights is to be put on the back burner.

Then we're reminded that Cameron is not opposed to another coalition in 2015...

 Clegg and Cameron 'in secret talks on setting up a second Coalition' despite backbench opposition

So what is it? Repeal the HRA, but remain in the ECHR, leave things the same, or leave the HRA and the ECHR but try to remain in the EU or just leave everything. Who knows? The Tories don't. This is what happens when you first set out to deceive...

A Running Sore

The BBC reports on a temporary victory for those against prisoners’ having the right to vote.

The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals from two prisoners over the right to vote under European Union rules. Convicted murderers Peter Chester and George McGeoch had argued that EU law gave them a right to vote - even though they cannot under British law.

Quoting Mr Europhile himself:

Prime Minister David Cameron told the Commons that the ruling was "a great victory for common sense".

But the BBC rightly acknowledges that:

…[that the concept] is now pretty well established that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting is in breach of European human rights law.

Therefore the issue is far from over yet. It matters not how long the UK Parliament drags this issue out, nor how many times it votes against its implementation, it is in breach of the law of our land.

It remains a running sore and a perfect example of the duplicity of our politicians who try to pretend otherwise.

Prisoners And Power (2)

In effect what has been announced today regarding prisoner's right to vote is an admission that Parliament chooses to be bound by European law - in whatever guise - in this case we can choose otherwise or to leave. Naturally there is legal wriggle room in today's statement to try to reject the proposal while remaining a member of the Council of Europe in form of 'international law vs Parliamentary sovereignty' which is an argument that is legally winnable on both sides.

But ultimately, and most importantly, it's also an admission that Parliament chooses to be bound by international agreements, thus choosing to be a member of the EU (our enemy lies within - Whitehall & MPs). Here's part of Chris Grayling's statement:

However, the Government are under an international law obligation to implement the Court judgement. As Lord Chancellor, as well as Secretary of State for Justice, I take my obligation to uphold the rule of law seriously. Equally, it remains the case that Parliament is sovereign, and the Human Rights Act 1998 explicitly recognises that fact. The current law passed by Parliament remains in force unless and until Parliament decides to change it. As Lord Justice Hoffmann put it in a case in 1999:

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost.

Last month, the Attorney-General made it clear in evidence to the Justice Committee that

“it is entirely a matter for Government to make proposals but ultimately for Parliament to determine what it wants to do. Parliament is sovereign in this area; nobody can impose a solution on Parliament, but the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”

So we come back to power, Parliament is so reluctant to abide by the ECHR ruling because the issue is so toxic because the people wish it so. Mr Grayling said there would be a "political cost" in doing so, But to whom? Not to the MPs who are supposed to represent us.

However we come to the sting in the tail, and what is so insidious in our membership of supranational institutions, Parliament forces itself to break the law it has passed because it is reluctant to repeal those laws it agrees largely with - against the wishes of those it is supposed to represent. Our own people power is not yet enough...

This is why I've been following this challenge with such interest. Exit for the EU or other European courts (established with the same aim as the EU for eventual political union) is not going to be on the back of arguments on tedious EU Directives but toxic issues such as this.

An axe murderer, who made a pot of coffee while waiting for his landlady to die, then with charmless, racist and homophobic arguments was always going to be a gem for tabloid headlines - influential as they are - which adds to the EU sceptic cause. I say ship him out to be interviewed more. (And I'm almost inclined to send Mr Hirst a crate of beer in thanks for his contribution for helping to get us out),

And the Pandora's box on prisoners' voting rights does not stop there, as James Landale at the BBC points out:

I am told that it is not actually the ECHR that is forcing the pace on this. The real issue that is concerning the government is a case sitting before the Supreme Court here in the UK and it is a case that could change the whole debate. George McGeoch is serving a life sentence in Dumfries prison for murdering a man in Inverness.

He is not arguing that the blanket ban on prisoner voting breaches his rights under the European Convention. He is arguing that his rights as an EU citizen are being infringed because he will not be able to vote for in the European Parliamentary elections in 2014.

The draft bill that Chris Grayling will publish this week will refer not just to prisoners' voting rights relating to domestic general and local elections. It will also refer to elections to the European Parliament.

So the hope in the Ministry of Justice is that the draft bill will delay - and ultimately sway - any decision by the Supreme Court on this matter so that Mr McGeoch does not end up with the vote.

And (my emphasis):

And that is an important hope. For if the Supreme Court did allow Mr McGeoch to get his name on the register of electors that would automatically allow thousands of other convicted prisoners around the UK to vote in European and municipal elections.

And many of them would demand compensation for past electoral moments they had missed. And that would be hugely expensive to the government. Ministers can in theory ignore unenforceable compensation orders from the ECHR. But they cannot do the same when the Supreme Court issues what are called Francovich damage orders, in other words, fines for breaking EU law.

So there would be a mess. The government would be forced to rush emergency legislation through Parliament. Compensation claims would come rushing in. So the key test for this Thursday's draft bill is not just what the judges in Strasbourg say. It is also how those judges sitting on the other side of Parliament Square respond.

A problem that will be accentuated by Article 6.2 of the Lisbon Treaty which requires the EU to join the Council of Europe and so come under ECHR rulings.

This is a mess of their making...they asked for it....we didn't, and I have no sympathy for the predicaments they find themselves in.

Oh what a web...

Prisoners And Power

The long running saga that is prisoners votes comes up again today. We, as a country, have to give a decision by 4pm tomorrow to the Council of Europe on how we are to implement voting for prisoners. A statement was due in the House at 12pm and I'll expand on that in a bit. No doubt there will be legal wriggle room to try to kick it into the long grass.

Despite that Parliament have fundamentally rejected the ECHR's ruling before, they are being made to vote again. This brings me neatly back to my post yesterday, not only that the rule of law is nothing without enforcement by power - but that power should be by the will of the people. A similar vote which comprehensively approves of the blanket ban is going to set the UK government on a collision course with the ECHR - a battle over power.

We could of course ignore the ruling, which Tory MP Dominic Raab seemed to be arguing for on today's BBC Daily Politics. But....and it's a big but, that sets a dangerous precedent; it would create a precedent where the government can break its own laws solely on grounds that it didn’t like the unintended consequences of its own policies. We really don't want to go down that route for obvious reasons.

As an aside, the Spectaor makes a good point in relation to this topic of how fearsomely complicated it is to unpick our legal international obligations should we not agree. It's a good example of how simply repealing the ECA 1972 to leave the EU is unworkable and woefully naive:

Withdrawing membership of the ECtHR is a complicated business because many of Britain’s international obligations, particularly those related to the UN, are based on our having incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law and our subscription to other international human rights conventions. Subsection three of this article in the European Journal of International Law goes some way to illustrating how complicated the situation is (and how uncertain lawyers generally are about the related academic questions).

In addition to the conventions and declarations of which most us have heard, we have to consider the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (1966), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Covenant on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. And there are almost certainly more.

In many ways, the proliferation of international law reveals how powerful executive bodies have become in recent years; and, indeed, how inscrutably remote they are from representative institutions. The legal complexities associated with the enormous growth in international government are extremely hard to grasp and explain without substantial legal training and practice experience (I’ve tried my best dear readers!). From the layman’s perspective, though, there is an absurd irony, worthy of Evelyn Waugh, in well-intentioned human beings having gone to such lengths to protect rights that the recipients cannot even understand and even resent.

Unpicking this is going to be fearsomely difficult for parliamentarians, whose time is already hard-pressed; but that is not a reason to ignore an important democratic and legal question, and once which extends far beyond the matter of prisoner voting.

Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty was also on the Daily Politics today (I'll put up a link later when it appears) arguing for the prisoners' vote ruling, and thus demonstrating her ignorance at the same time of how a democracy is supposed to work. In effect revealing the desperate need for Harrogate. She tried to argue that Parliament has to abide by the rule of law. This is a concept she struggles with, but Parliament is the law - that's the whole point of it. It makes law with consent of the people via elections (in theory). The current situation means a judiciary body is telling an elected Parliament what laws to pass and what not to pass. Thus the ECHR is not imposing prisoners voting rights on Parliament as she suggests but on the people; in the process removing our own right to vote in effect.

And by doing so it is acting as both a judiciary and legislature without any proper accountability via the ballot box. I think the young Shami Chakrabarti needs to study the theory and practice of the separation of powers; essential for a proper democracy - which is Harrogate demand #3

Shami Chakrabarti doesn't seem to realise that 'elite intellectual arguments' (and I use the term loosely where she's concerned) that effectively remove power from us are historically the basis and causes of revolutions.

Prisoners' Votes

The Savile scandal has enabled the Tories to try to bury a lot of bad news. One was the backtracking on the culling of badgers and another appears to be a change in stance on the long running saga of prisoners' votes. On the face of it not much has changed, the government have until November 22nd to tell the ECHR how it intends to implement at least partial rights or possibly face compensation claims. Despite that, there has been fierce opposition to the proposals - Cameron said the idea made him 'physically sick' and Parliament comprehensively voted against any measures by 234 to 22 votes.

Yet the Guardian reports, that the Tories are to set 'cave in', given extra credence that it is being reported while news is dominant by other factors:

The government is planning a draft bill introducing limited prisoner voting rights to comply with the European court of human rights, despite fierce opposition from Eurosceptic backbenchers.

But embarrassed government ministers are likely to defer the hugely controversial announcement until just before a late-November deadline, allowing it to be made after the police commissioner elections on 17 November.

One would like to think this is merely another delaying tactic, though experience with Tories on anything Europe often tells us otherwise:

The political advantage of agreeing to publish a draft bill is that the government would not be seen to be in open defiance of the European court in that it would be taking steps with the court order to introduce legislation on prisoners' rights.

Yet, in practice, a draft bill might take years to reach the statute book, since it would require wide consultation and allow amendment by a joint committee of both houses. The two alternatives are to table a fresh Commons motion, or to publish a bill.

 And it would appear too that Labour are softening their stance

Labour does not favour prisoner voting rights but does not want to be seen to be ignoring the [ECHR].

So Parliament has spoken...and it means absolutely nothing at all. The irony in all of this is prisoners will still be just as disenfranchised after gaining the right as before it.

Being A Member Of A Club

One of the increasingly insidious 'benefits' of EU membership is a desire, largely because of a disconnect between the people and their government, to argue that the government should break the law, particularly where the EU (or the ECHR) legislates in areas we don't agree with.

Often comments on websites or when campaigning in elections consist usually of the following; "Why don't we do what the French do?", "why don't we tell the EU to get stuffed" or "other countries ignore the EU why not us?".

While such sentiments are understandable, they overlook a universal truth. Democracy is, or should be based on the rule of law, - the EU is part of our law and government - so we have a duty to comply.

Arguing for our politicians to essentially break the law leads us down a very slippery slope indeed ("I wanted our government to tell the EU to go do one - great - but now it's locked me up for 18 months without a trial, that's not fair")

Instead the answer is actually pretty straight forward - don't belong to the club. Belonging to any club is always simple, whether it's the EU, the WI jam making society or the East India Club:

1. Accept and abide by the rules.


2. Disagree with rules so change them from within.


3. Or leave

So when it comes to our membership of the EU:

1. Acceptance is the desire of our political class but they can't cope with being honest about the rules. So they lie. Instead they should put up or shut up.


2. Changing the rules is never going to happen and is virtually impossible, despite Tory lightweights trying to pretend otherwise.


3. So in the event of disagreeing with the EU (ECHR) and complaining about rules you can't change then that only leaves one option. Number 3.

 Which leads me neatly onto blogger Crash, Bang and Wallace:

So the European Court of Human Rights has once more trampled over our sovereign right to set our own laws – this time ruling to outlaw the extremely popular ban on convicts being able to vote.

Plenty of people would be delighted if the British Government simply ignored the ruling, and refused to pay any fines it might levy as a result. However, if the Government is really keen to ensure we obey the rule of law – even absurd Strasbourg law – then there is another solution.

Why not do as the ECHR asks, and abolish our blanket ban by allowing some prisoners to vote – but only those convicted of one very specific and very obscure crime which is unlikely to be committed and even more unlikely to be prosecuted?

A good example would be the offence of “Impersonating a Chelsea Pensioner” – a historic crime for which no-one is currently in jail. We would technically be ticking the box for Strasbourg, while in reality thumbing our nose at them.

If they can act ridiculously to thwart our intentions, then surely we can do the same in return.

 Or there's another solution...leave. When will people grow up?

Wakey Wakey

From Tory MP Zac Goldsmith:

Cameron's Europe Problems Just Increased

From the Telegraph (my emphasis):

The European Court of Human Rights upheld a previous ruling that a blanket ban on inmates being able to vote was unlawful.

However, the court signalled that the UK government could decide which prisoners should be enfranchised, meaning serious offenders such as murderers and rapists could be excluded.

Judges may even be handed discretion to decide which criminals are allowed the vote. The Government now has six months to comply with the ruling or face a raft of challenges and huge legal costs. 

I'm liking the way unaccountable ECHR judges are helping us to decide our own law. At this point I feel it's worth repeating a quote made in 1977 from former Labour MP Tony Benn in his diaries:

...I was a member of the first British Government in history to be informed that it was behaving illegally by a court whose ruling you could not alter by changing the law in the House of Commons. It was a turning point...

Prisoners Votes Part 346

To the surprise of no-one the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has refused to even consider the Government's appeal. As Grand Chamber rulings can't be appealed against one can only assume that this was merely a tactic by the Government to buy time.

This case has been a prime example of what happens when unaccountable institutions have power. The ECHR not only is not listening to the wishes of a democratically elected Parliament but is telling that Parliament in effect what laws it should pass and in what time frame:

The court also demanded the right to fix the Parliamentary timetable for introducing the legislation.

If the Government does not bring forward new laws within six months, European judges will begin ordering the payment of an estimated £150million in compensation to killers, rapists and other prisoners.

Tory MP Dominic Raab called it shocking arrogance:

‘It is shocking arrogance for the Strasbourg Court to dismiss the legitimate concerns of Britain’s elected law-makers without even listening to the arguments.

It's hard to disagree. If seeing our elected Parliament bossed around like this by an unaccountable body is not a reason for a revolution then I'm not sure what is.

It'll be interesting to see what Cameron does. I do actually believe Cameron when he says wants to resist this measure. Not because he doesn't want prisoners to have the right to vote - he probably doesn't give two hoots about that - nor does he want to stand up to Europe, however on this deeply unpopular issue he knows, as well as we do, that capitulation will ironically hasten our exit. It's no coincidence that since this subject cropped up last year that UKIP national membership has experienced a very significant increase.

What really makes Cameron 'physically sick' is thought that he may be the one that helps our exit from his beloved EU project.

Open Letter To Cameron

There's a letter today in my local paper, that I thought I would reproduce here. The popularity of the Tories is only going to go in one direction - plummet - particularly as the economic realities hit home. So you would have thought that Cameron would want to keep as many of his Tory friends on side as much as possible. Not so, he has more 'important things' to consider.

'Wait til we're in power' they cried, well we're still waiting:

THE following is an open letter to David Cameron.

I voted for your party. I thought you might have reformed the Human Rights Act. I thought I was told you would, or perhaps scrap it altogether. I was mistaken.

I thought you would give me a vote on Europe. I was mistaken.

I never in my wildest dreams thought you would put someone in a high position who wants to give prisoners the vote and cut compensation for close relatives of people who have been murdered; someone who wants to release people early and close some prisons. I was wrong.

I thought you might have cut foreign aid until we are in a better financial position. I was mistaken.

I am sure you told me, when petrol was 20p a litre cheaper than it is now, that it was too expensive and that you would introduce a fuel stabiliser.

Am I imagining things as I get older? I hope not; the NHS may not be able to help me.

I thought immigration might be stopped or severely curtailed, to allow us to absorb the immigrants we have, until our infrastructure is suitable to accommodate more people. I was wrong.

I thought I was voting for someone who would be tough on crime. I was mistaken.

I thought I was voting for someone with guts, who would stand up for the hard working people of Great Britain, against the unelected parliament in Europe – the accounts of which auditors have refused to sign off for 16 consecutive years.

One of its latest directives, that we have to obey, will put up car insurance for female drivers.

Europe needs us more than we need it. Show some of the guts that we thought you had when we voted for you; put a referendum to the people: in or out?

I had hoped I voted for someone who had good old common sense.

I voted Conservative, but now I don’t know why I bothered.

Steve Chandler, Sandford Lane, Kennington

The Right Is Wrong

As the prisoners' right to vote saga continues to rumble on, I have a letter published today in my local paper: the Oxford Mail, which I reproduce below:

Catherine Bearder MEP said (Oxford Mail, February 14) that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is independent of any government or political interference.

That is largely correct, but it means by logical conclusion that it is also independent of the views of the ballot box.

The perfect irony with the issue of votes for prisoners is, should the ECHR force us to abide by its ruling, that in effect will deprive the rest of us of exactly the same human right – the right to change this law by the ballot box.

That is fundamentally wrong.

This issue should be decided by our democratically elected parliament not by an unaccountable foreign court.

In this judgement the ECHR has gone beyond the wishes of its creators and is overstepping its remit.

It’s sad to say, but if it continues to do so we have no option but to withdraw for the sake of our democracy, and the human rights of the vast majority of our law-abiding citizens.

UKIP In Barnsley

Barnsley has a by-election on 3rd March, here's one of the UKIP candidate's posters:

hattip: Michael Heaver's Blog

Cameron Will Cave In

...to the ECHR on the issue of prisoners right to vote. This post from David Blackburn (Spectator) outlines the legal difficulties of the coalition's position regarding prisoners right to vote. Here are the recommendations of the advice (my emphasis):

1. The Strasbourg judgments on Hirst and Greens and MT are binding on the UK and no action that could be taken now – even withdrawal from the ECHR – will remove the legal obligation to implement them.
   
   
2. The sanctions at a European level for failure or refusal to implement the judgments (and non-compliance with any subsequent order by the Strasbourg court to pay compensation in the 3,500 clone cases) are primarily political: criticism by the Committee of Ministers in Strasbourg. In theory the UK could be suspended or expelled from the Council of Europe (CoE) and EU, but this is highly unlikely. The timing of any criticism, compensation decisions and suspension/expulsion depends on the UK’s stance. Outright refusal to implement is likely to result in a much quicker reaction (eg. Court rulings on compensation in a matter of months).
   
   
3. Failure to implement the judgments is also being challenged in the domestic courts. 585 domestic cases are pending and could lead to declarations of incompatibility and, in relation to Northern Ireland or European elections, order for compensation.
   
   
4. In addition, as we have previously discussed, the UK would lose international credibility on human rights. In CoE, our ability to press other states to implement human rights judgments (eg. Russia on Chechnya) would be completely undermined. So would our broader international dialogues on human rights with countries like China.

In effect the democratic will of our Parliament and the people is being disregarded. Apparently we will lose 'international credibility' on human rights unless we comply with an unaccountable unelected foreign court. Er...hello? I'm not sure how the UK obeying the democratic will of its own Parliament loses us credibility. Unless I'm mistaken, the argument seems to run that if our goverment does not defy its own people it will become a diplomatic laughing stock. Have I just woken up in a Salvador Dali dream?

Regardless our government will still capitulate:

The UK’s position in the Strasbourg and UK litigation (under the previous and current administrations and with collective agreement) has been that the government accepts that the current law is incompatible and intends to remedy it. The issue has been about when and to what extent to extend the franchise.

At a time when our government is praising the actions of people in the Middle East who are defying their government, they are expressing a different message at home. It's about time we got on the streets and voiced our own concerns and told our regime where to go. In the words of the Prodigy; fuck 'em and their law.

This Vote Won't Count

Today was the Parliamentary debate and decision on prisoners' right to vote and as expected there was a significant victory to maintain the ban (234 to 22 - a majority of 212) in defiance of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

But will it matter? No not really. Firstly the House of Commons' vote is not binding. Although it will undoubtedly exert some political pressure on ministers to go against the ECHR's decision, ultimately the vote does not change our international obligations to honour the European court’s judgments.

Instead matters have become somewhat complicated. It’s now not clear how the government will be able to satisfy both the ECHR and Parliament - who must approve any change in the law. A fight between Europe and Parliament? Well on experience we all know which way that will eventually go, as Attorney General Dominic Grieve has indeed hinted:

...he anticipated “a drawn-out dialogue between ourselves and the court” over the issue.

In other words how can we amend or implement a European law / ruling that will be able to get rammed through Parliament against the electorate's wishes. We've been here before.

And today's scenes in Parliament give an illustration. On a debate that was supposedly reasserting Parliament's authority, the green benches were empty; far fewer than half bothered to vote - 394 out of 650 MPs were absent. Of those that took part in the debate, there was plenty of passion, and references to voters' anger and indignant claims of "laws should be made in this place". Well, where have they been since May? Especially when this coalition Government has passed more laws over to the EU faster than you can say Cameron is a liar. Indeed only 12 voted against approval of the Lisbon Treaty.

Despite all the talk in Parliament, and Cameron's carefully worded PR dog whistle sound bite that it made him; “physically ill to contemplate giving the vote to prisoners”, Parliament or this Government has no intention of repatriating powers back to the UK. As Mary Ellen Synon argues:

All I can say to the Commons over this votes for prisoners dispute is: just shut up and pull the trigger and get out of the Council of Europe. Or admit you are too timid to pull the trigger, so shut up anyway and submit in the manner that suits men who are cowards.

Exactly, if we really wanted to stand up against Europe (EU or otherwise) we would threaten, or take, the nuclear option. Otherwise, the mantra; "we're fighting for Britain's interests by standing up against Europe" is what it's always been;

bollocks...on stilts.

Update: Witterings From Witney has the latest that Cameron plans to overrule Parliament's / our wishes. It's oh oh so so predictable.

Why Prisoners' Right To Vote Is A Good Thing

After 5 years the issue simply won't go away. The saga of the rights of prisoners to vote is still rumbling on, much to the discomfort of Cameron. There's a Parliamentary vote on Thursday which Cameron, knowing that he could lose on a whip, has allowed a free vote. And today the Policy Exchange think tank has called for withdrawal from the 'expansionist' European Court of Human Rights:

The report, written by a former government adviser, Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, says the UK has become "subservient" to the Strasbourg court.

He says it also ignores the traditional British freedom of the press.

The report claims the 47 Strasbourg judges have "virtually no democratic legitimacy" and are poorly qualified compared to Britain's own senior judges.

Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, who wrote the foreword to the report, said Strasbourg has "taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states".

The report says the ECHR is a "virtually unaccountable supra-national bureaucracy".

Before my readers get the wrong impression regarding my blog post title, I would like to express that personally I'm against prisoners' having the right to vote for two main reasons:

1. Firstly it is my view that the right to vote is a contract between our country's citizens and the Government. As responsible citizens we have an obligation to respect the rule of law. As part of that contract to abide by Government laws (even ones we don't agree with) it is only fair and justified that there is a process which gives us the opportunity to remove them from power and vote in a different Government who can change existing laws (no Parliament may bind its successor etc)
   
   Therefore it follows that criminals who have broken the law have - by choice - refused to abide by their side of the contract, so it is only right that while they are incarcerated temporarily (however long temporarily is) that the Government removes their right to have a say on law making - for breaching the terms and conditions of being a responsible citizen. In short, if you want the right to vote don't break the law.
   
   And this contract works both ways: if a Government removes the right to vote (effectively hands over power to foreign undemocratic and unelected bodies) then it has broken its side of the contract and so removes law abiding citizens from the obligation to abide by its laws. A la Egypt and us; it's a two-way process.
   
   
2. More importantly and connected with the first point, my main objection is that this decision regarding prisoners' right to vote is not being made by democratic discussion in Parliament, with parties voted in by the will of the people. It is being made instead by an undemocratic, unaccountable foreign court. The dazzling irony is that prisoners are being given 'democratic rights' by an unelected, unaccountable court against the democratic wishes of the British people. That position is fundamentally wrong, as well as strangely surreal.
   

However despite my fundamental objections I wish to be pragmatic. Given the current situation our country finds itself in it is my belief that prisoner votes are a good thing because it helps hasten our exit out of the EU. (yes the decision is largely a non-EU European Court of Human Rights one but such details are unimportant in the propaganda war - Europhiles constantly criticise the press coverage of the EU over eggs but are happy to ignore other more fundamental issues).

As I argued here the problem with fighting the EU is its Directives. Essentially the electorate at large do not care about the EU technicalities of food safety, the intricacies of foreign treaties or the differences between the EU and the Council of Europe. And this is exacerbated by the fact that laws - which get made in Brussels - aren't articulated clearly by our traitors in Parliament. Our so called government does its best to hide EU laws.

That's why the prisoners' voting saga matters, it does resonate, it can't be hidden and our political class cannot pretend otherwise. Instead of having to constantly recite EU Directives that lead to Post Office closures, higher fuel bills etc there is now a demonstrably direct link with a toxic issue and Europe. Even the BBC can't hide it - having it on the front page of their web site today.

Quite simply it's another example that the unaccountable European elite will implode because it will over reach itself - with power comes greed. The more power the EU / Europe gets the more it reveals itself. And this is its fundamental weakness - it will intrude more and more on issues that do cause electoral heartache: taxes, health, crime etc - something the EU acknowledges itself.

It was only ever a matter of time before politically toxic decisions were made that could no longer be hidden by UK politicians.

In effect John Hirst has unwittingly helped the UK move nearer the EU exit door, which in turn will repeal prisoner voting rights without interference from unelected foreign judges.

Getting Away With Murder

Laughably John Hirst, him the 'personal crusader for human rights', seems to be ignorant of other's human rights, notably freedom of speech (article 10) - other than, of course, the right to live. He's threatening to sue just about everyone for libel, including Gawain Towler:

John, you cut your landlandy up with an axe. Deal with it, some will not allow you the convienmce that you allow yourself, your manslaughter verdict does not in any way diminish your responsibility in my or many other eyes. To me you are an axe-murderer, and what is more I describe you as such ion converstaions, on line and elsewhere.

So go on, add me to your list of legal targets. Because that email and threat just has to be the most pompus thing I have seen in years.

Hirst's response?

I am putting you on notice to remove the libel against me or face the legal consequences.

Apparently the European Convention on Human Rights only works one way for the likes of John Hirst

Threats

If I received personal threats which endangered my personal safety then the last thing I would do is tweet to all of my followers a letter which contains my full home address for the whole of the world to see.

That isn't really very bright.

I Could Murder A Joint

This didn't make me laugh, honestly:

John Hirst, the axe killer who paved the way for prisoners to get the vote in Britain, is facing a police investigation over a possible breach of licence after he filmed himself apparently smoking a cannabis joint.

What's interesting, and not at all surprising, is that despite Cameron's attempt to bury this news on the eve of America's mid term elections this issue is not going away - and nor will it. The political toxicity of this demonstrated rather aptly by Nick Clegg who showed the same level of backbone as Cameron.

Far from being the issue that no-one cares about, Europe has just suddenly shot up everyone's priority list

Murderous Charms

I don't want give this gloating man any more publicity than necessary, but he is helping the 'exit out of Europe' cause no end. It's only for this reason I post this (via Ian Dale) It truly is excruciating: